Goethean Science: From mere categorizing to interactive experiments

UPDATED DRAFT Why did Goethe feel a new way of seeing was needed?

Compared to centuries of earlier superstition and Alchemy fallen into mere witchcraft, one-sided, left-brain intelligence, exercised in the Enlightenment and Age of Reason was indeed a step forward.

However by 1750 Western philosophy was falling more and more into extreme one-sidedness, into exclusively rational Thinking.  Goethe was one of few aware of this flaw. He recognized it as an ethical and moral dead end.  More and more Goethe saw the consensual view of the human being falling into exclusively mechanical understanding and rhetoric.

Goethe believed every act of looking at a thing turns into observation, every act of observation turns into mentation, every act of mentation turns into associations. Thus it is evident we theorize every time we look attentively out into the world.”

For Goethe, the ultimate aim of experiments was two-sided:  increase of human knowledge of lawful patterns and behavior; as well, the growth, maturing and metamorphosis of the experimenter. In Goethean Science, experiment is the ‘mediator between object and subject.’ Experiments are two-fold, revealing more about the natural world; at the same time, revealing more about the experimenter to him or herself.

Where Cartesian-Newtonian science accepts only a single, practical syllogism about experimenters and research topics, Goethe stood for and demonstrated the practice of science as an art, an artistic practice directed towards partnership with Nature and refining the experimenter’s perceptions over time towards Imagination, Inspiration and Intuition.

Goethe’s method of science as art, of experiment as mediator between experimenter and Nature, can be applied to studies of every kind, in the arts and humanities as well as in science.

To cut through the vast sea of Goethe verbiage discussing his significance, I think the useful contrast for modern readers is between Goethe and Carl Linnaeus.

What did Linnaeus do? Carl Linnaeus was the founder of modern taxonomy. His books are the beginning of modern botanical and zoological nomenclature. Linnaeus drew up rules for assigning names to plants and animals. He made naming and identifying plants in the field more workable. “…he introduced the standard hierarchy of class, order, genus, and species. His main success in his own day was providing workable keys, making it possible to identify plants and animals from his books. For plants he made use of the hitherto neglected smaller parts of the flower” ~ Britannica online

“[His] folio volume of only 11 pages presented a hierarchical classification, or taxonomy, of the three kingdoms of nature: stones, plants, and animals. Each kingdom was subdivided into classes, orders, genera, species, and varieties. This hierarchy of taxonomic ranks replaced traditional systems of Linnaeus’s classification system has survived in biology.” His naming system was implicitly hierarchical. Each species is classified within a genus ~ Forgotten online source

Linnaeus’ impulse started or at least greatly accelerated, the left-brain science of making categories and nested sub-categories.

Before Linnaeus there was only a system of biological classification based on mutually exclusive divisions, or dichotomies, too simple to handle the wide diversity of sub-species existing in Nature.

The result? Naturalists everywhere had to use Linnaeus’ classifications directly or at least use them to determine if specimens in their collections were indeed new species or not.

Goethe’s concern was a narrowing of attention to mere category accuracy was a step sideway, not forward.

Specialization per se in science, emphasis on accumulation of mere data, in a merely mechanical manner, devoid of human creativity or human values, could not be by itself, a step forward to integrating Man and Nature.

To put words in Goethe’s mouth, he wondered, ‘How does such activity benefit or further human development of and awareness of the UR-human?’

///

For Goethe, any science defining itself exclusively by how well it presented information gleaned from only physical-material characteristics, selected external traits, was absent humanity. With the limited rhetorical tools available in his time, he fought against a narrowing-contracting interplay between humans and Nature.

Putting words in his mouth again, a science reducing human beings and human nature to merely collecting and tabulating Nature was a job clerks could do. The best and the brightest could exercise a much wider range of intelligences.

Again putting words in his mouth, what was needed, was a bigger idea, a workable comprehensive theory of how to bring ALL of the human explorer to ALL of the subject in Nature, he or she was studying.

I think it’s fair to say Goethe wished a rhetoric about how, in modern language, humans could surrender to Nature; and how in turn, Nature could surrender to human beings.

Implied in the above modern formulation of Goethe’s ideas is how in surrender, Nature will “give up” and reveal her secrets to human beings.

Conversely, human explorers can expect to surrender, have their own private, secret and unresolved issues and unanswered questions (mental-emotional, moral, ethical) uncovered, triggered and revealed.

Finally in Goethe’s comprehensive theory of holistic science–our words, not his–the end-product is a summary text–or better–artistic work, to share with other explorers and interested lay persons, the uncoveries of Nature’s secrets (the additive human knowledge fetch-quest so prized by left-brainers).

As well, share with other explorers and interested lay persons the uncoveries the explorers made into their own issues, the new personal realizations, the new ethics, the clarified morals, and what more of the UR-human was revealed, as individually defined.

In the above complimentary external-outer uncoveries and internal-inner uncoveries, Goethe saw a balanced use of human intelligences in “science.”  In modern language–this I believe was Goethe’s new way of seeing.

In fewer words, Goethe believed it’s natural, normal and healthy for the experimenter to be altered and changed by his or her observations and conclusions.  These “personal growth” benefits of experimentation ought to be celebrated and incorporated into reports and findings.

This did not go over well with left-brainers committed to the exclusively Ahrimanic strengths of “one-eyed, color blind, kinematic intelligence” (Ernst Lehrs).  For the exclusively left-brain thinkers, knowledge was all and only about facts, the more isolated the better.

For Goethe, the production of new knowledge was inseparable from the personal, ethical moral, and spiritual(?) growth of the experimenter.  In Steiner’s terms, a balance of Lucifer and Ahriman was called for. In modern terms, a whole-brained approach, a Team Human Approach, was called for.

Q: Was Goethe closer to the nebulous older alchemists and mystics?

A: Ernst Lehrs and other Goethe literature suggests, no, this was not the case. Goethe knew well the dangers of superstition, the dangers of ‘too warm’ thinking, with no emphasis on consistency, rigor or precision. In his late teens he made a study of alchemy:

quote In his autobiography, Goethe half-apologetically admits the youthful enthusiasm he experienced for alchemical and mystical readings: Georg von Welling’s obscure Opus Mago-Cabbalisticum et Theosophicum and the anonymously published Aurea Catena Homeri, as well as works by Paracelsus, Basilis Valentinus and van Helmont ~ Goethe the Alchemist: A Study of Alchemical Symbolism in Goethe’s Literary and Scientific Works (Cambridge Library Collection – Literary Studies)

The result? He learned the limitations of this overly-subjective insufficiently objective thinking. A little symbolism might be tolerated. Too much spoils the soup. Goethe was not a closet-Alchemist. He was a throw forward to thinking which mostly did not come again until 1975, our first holistic, whole-brained thinker.

As a whole-brain thinker–my term, not his–knowledge separated from Nature and from human Thinking~Feeling, from Imagination, Intuition and Inspiration, was ‘dead thinking,’ thinking only natural to soulless automatons.

Arranging material phenomena in logical linear sequence is a valid scientific method.  Why separate it? Why carry out the activity in isolation from your own Thinking~Feeling development?  Aren’t you interested in sharpening your powers of observation, in how new facts help us correct our own faulty conclusions, fuzzy ethics and weak moral development?

In a fantastic image, imagine Goethe in his time machine visiting the Manhattan Project.  You would see him making notes for for a Faust Part Three.  He would have seen the one-sided thinking of the A-bomb scientists as a dramatically tragic illustration of left-brain thinking mostly devoid of and separate from natural human powers of self-correction, ethical and moral development.

Goethe’s middle way between cold and warm thinking was a living interaction with Nature “the labor of experimentation”.

I imagine Goethe seeing only very occasional use for the cold machine of first coming up with an abstract hypothesis; then, setting up an artificial experiment to test the hypothesis ‘to see if it works or not.’

Today we recognize this kind of one-sided experiment as vulnerable to narcissism, arranging facts and observations to line up with our own hypothesis. Alternatively, we recognize one-sided left-brain experimenting as having the sole intention to invent new products corporations can market, the use of experimental method solely for commercial purposes.

///

Since 1970s at least we recognize the usefulness of “whole system analysis” seeing the parts within the natural whole.

In the educated West at least, a lean towards more holistic science suggests a workable directon for the evolution of human thinking, away from the cold-only thinking of Galileo-Descartes-Newton and towards warmer whole-brainedness, back towards Goethe and his experimental method.

Q: Does Goethean Science’s altered value system regarding quantification, cause it to have less rigor in its experimental method compared to Galileo-Descartes-Newton science?

A: It’s a needed question. If whole-brained Goethean Science was easy to do, we would have done it yesterday. Goethean Science is more rigorous about experimental method than conventional scinece.

Why? How? In addition to conventional Second Order standards and criteria for studying external phenomena quantitatively, Goethean Science asks its experimentalists to be rigorous in two additional realms:

1) The subjective realm of:

– Monitoring personal biases and prejudices,

– Monitoring personal Aha!s gained thru the observations and experiments,

2) The moral-ethical realm (Third Order Science) of how observations and experiments in the outer world are changing the experimenter’s inner life of morality and ethics, if any.

The above suggests a balance of quantitative observation and qualitative observation.

Q: What’s an example where practitioners of such balanced science can be observed?

A: Agriculture, farming and Biodynamics. Scratch the surface of any humanistic agriculture; such as, https://www.biodynamics.com/what-is-biodynamics and you quickly find discussion of ethical questions relating to sourcing fertilizers, pest control, etc.

50 years after Goethe’s death, Rudolf Steiner became Goethe’s student and editor of his scientific works.

RS absorbed enuf of Goethe’s holistic method to become a throw-forward, our second modern holistic thinker. His best-known legacy? A Goethean Psychology of human development, child development and K-12 schooling, curiously titled, “Waldorf-methods education.”

Goethe challenged the view experimentalists can look on their target devoid and naive of their own theoretical and personal context.

He likewise challenged the assumption shared common language in science research and innovation was fully evolved, in its final form. In more modern language, Goethe at least intuited each person perceives uniquely; therefore, scientists talking and using language as if everyone thinks and perceives the same was dangerous illusion. Further, new generations were going to think a bit differently, hence shared common language in science research and innovation would respond to this as well.

Essence and Ur phenomena

For Goethe when scientists adopt a more living, more humanistic, approach, capable of entering into the living essence of Nature, expressed in the phenomenon studied, this leads the experimenter towards a face-to-face meeting with an essence of Nature, crucial underlying archetype-patterns (”Ur-phänomen”).

The Goethean Experimenter does not try to define or explain the essence; he or she reads the essence, appreciates the essence as you would gradually get to know the character and preferences of your own newborn child, revealed over some time.

The inherent order and logic of a very young child’s character, talents and preferences while invisible, are clearly objective not subjective, not invented by the experimenter. The very young child is not defined or explained; they are “read;” or better, “appreciated” and later understood in terms which can be shared with others.

/// this directly above may have been built on Wikipedia verbiage.  Often their verbiage is terrible and very stimulating to edit, revise and upgrade.

2017 Father-Mother-God model of the atom

Abstract-summary

What if a model of the atom exists which clearly bridges Father-Mother-God into familiar physical material matter? Since about 2012 it appears the literature in two fields has evolved enuf to put together such a model.

Short version: Each atom is the pleasant intercourse of Father God with Mother God. Mother God (Vishnu, ether) contributes the etheric form, shape and substance–not weight–to each atom. The etheric part of an atom is visible to clairvoyant investigation. That’s the Mother God (Divine Feminine) contribution. The Mother God etheric substance of each atom is the swirling vortex of the Theosophical atom:

Dg-Babbit-Theosophical atom (ANU)

Father God contributes the positive qualities of “realness,” “mass” and “weight” to each atom. The Father part is in the “empty” spinning vortex “funnel” center of each atom. The Father-substance is NOT visible to clairvoyant perception. The Father part is only perceptible by each person’s spiritual heart, by each person’s integrity.

How a new model springs from the 1880s ether vortex atom model and esoteric Light and Sound literature is detailed.

Start

Ready for a S-T-R-E-T-C-H? This is a big idea.

What if our model of God is limited by the old-school model of atom-as-particles?

What if our model of how you-as-soul and God are Partners, is limited by an out-dated, old-school, atomic model?

I wonder if people adhering unconsciously to old-school 1950s model of the atom, are stuck in the conventional Enlightenment model of physical matter, the solar system and the Universe. Since about 2012 it’s been possible to pull together a model of the atom incorporating the 1880s experiments of the vortex atom with the Light & Sound ideas of Positive Qualities in Soul and Above. The result? A model of the atom converging Father-Mother-God with 3D physical material matter.

Since 2012, a few scholarly works exist looking back on the history of the vortex atom and Occult Chemistry. This week I bumped into these more recent scholarly efforts online. I read a wonderful account of the history of ideas in the vortex atom. This model was the most popular and promising model of the atom prior to the ‘atomic weight, atomic particle’ model. The 1950s model of the atom began with the uncovery of the electron in 1887 then proceed to the model of the atom as electron, proton and neutron.

Detailed and readable historical account document online: “The Vortex Atom: A Victorian Theory of Everything” by Helge Kragh, 83 pages. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0498.2002.440102.x/abstract

The vortex model of the atom was popular in England and the US in the late 1800s. Why these two countries? Two reasons. One was interest in exercising new-found Sherlock-Holmes-ian thinking was highest in these two countries. Second, interest in the scientific clairvoyant investigations of Theosophical Society investigators was strongest in these two countries.

Dg- For comparison: Dr. Randolf Stones’ Polarity Atom: http://www.digitaldrstone.org/v2b6c12.shtml

Following is a brief summary of what scientists were doing in this area, in the late 1800s.

Between 1850-1880 many invisible patterns in air and water, began to be seriously studied and publicly demonstrated by Natural Science enthusiasts. These natural patterns included:

– smoke rings, a generator box was invented,

Dg- smoke box

– early experiments in vortex spirals in water (Schauberger was unknown until the 1930s)

dg-vortex

– a small sphere of colored water could be made to spin, then sent to move intact thru a larger volume of clear water; tho, only for relatively short distances.

Another large body of simple, replicable experiments with magnets were demonstrated publicly and in colleges.

Dg- magnets patterns

In short, a large body of replicable experiments could be performed by anyone to demonstrate the reality of invisible patterns in the media of air, water and magnetized items. These could be reliably re-created by human experiment. All these topics came together 1850-1880s.

Q: Was the Periodic Table unknown?

A: Yes. The Periodic Table developed over 100 years 1828-1913. Please imagine Victorian times as ignorant of the Periodic Table as we know it now. The Table as we know it since Einstein’s day, closed minds, mostly ended amateur science. Before the Periodic Table, scientists were much more open-minded than we are today. Timeline of Periodic Table development: http://www.datesandevents.org/events-timelines/19-periodic-table-timeline.htm

Educated natural scientists in Victorian England were all exposed to Theosophy’s idea of an invisible “ether.” Uncovery of invisible patterns in air and water stimulated the question, ‘Could these patterns exist in the invisible Ether and help us understand the nature of physical matter?’

Air-water experiments encouraged people to imagine invisible ether patterns might exist and be uncovered. What if the invisible patterns uncovered in the media of air, water and magnetism could, taken together, illuminate the nature of the ether and the nature of physical matter?

Chladni plate patterns formed by sound

Victorian natural scientists had also been impressed with the effects of sound to shape form as was seen on Chaladni plates.

“Chladni (1756 – 1827) repeated the pioneering experiments of Robert Hooke who, in 1680, had observed the nodal patterns associated with the vibrations of glass plates. Hooke ran a violin bow along the edge of a plate covered with flour and saw the nodal patterns emerge.[8][9] Chladni’s technique with metal plates was first published in 1787…” ~ Wikipedia

Dg-chaladni-plate

Dg-chaladni-patterns

Hundreds more images-patterns: https://www.google.com/search?q=multiple+water+vortices&newwindow=1&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjF9abFgOnUAhWD0YMKHZPpCq8Q_AUICygC&biw=1431&bih=733#newwindow=1&tbm=isch&q=chladni+plates

Knot patterns

Dg-knot patterns

The study of rope knot patterns also suggested archetypal patterns of connection could exist and be invisible, perhaps “alive” in an Ether.

Could multiple thin vortex spirals be generated in the same media; and then, interact, weave together as we see in knot patterns? Could it be in ether, vortex spirals automatically knotted patterns resembling the patterns reliably generated by magnetized needles placed in water? Could all these be at work?

End of the ether vortex atomic model

1887 was a turning point in the interest of the natural Science community away from its interest in the vortex theory of the atom. In 1887 J.J. Thomson, a prime proponent substantiating the ether, coined the word “electron,” suggesting an invisible electrical particle. This was soon to be followed by the coining of the words “proton” and “neutron.” The interest of scientific community turned towards particle-atomic weight models.

Q: Why did the electron-proton-neutron model emerge and take over?

A: Because neither ether theory nor ether vortex atom model could not explain physical mass and weight.

The best the ether vortex model could do was propose an interweaving of vacant, empty vortex “threads,” exactly analogous to the central empty air shaft we see in any well-made water vortex, must hold some aspect of God. Helge Kragh’s reporting recounts proposals at this point suggesting God was the missing “component” within the empty vortices. Perhaps if God was present inside the empty space central to a vortex, God contributed the quality of physical-material weight and mass.

Bringing God in to any model of atomic structure was forcefully rejected each and every time in the 1880s.

What if we returned to this moment?

It’s 2017. What if we brought the ether vortex atom model discussion forward into today? Do we have rhetoric to bridge the gap between observable experimental phenomena (air, water, magnets) and God?

I think we do. We make use of the Goethean Holistic Science view; meaning, any conclusion about subjective experience or phenomena can only be validated and replicated individually.

Bringing Goethe into 2017, he might say, ‘The model you have inside you of how one atom “operates” relates and connects with your model of how the solar system and the physical-material Universe “operates.”‘

Q: I’m uncomfortable with the word “God.”

A: Fine. You can use “Mystery.” “Mystery” also points to phenomena ‘above and beyond the mind.’ Mystery is what our mere mentalizing mind cannot yet grasp.

If God or Mystery is not part of your model of the atom, your model of the solar system and the Universe is likely to also be empty of Mystery and God.

If you believe you live in a Mystery-less, God-less universe, how can you, an individual, be a part of Mystery? With the Divine Feminine? With the Father God?

So we arrive at some big, delicious questions.

Next, we reverse the above question: What if every fact of the atom, the solar system, and the Universe was 100% explained by the agency of our merely mentalizing Mind?

If atoms, matter, solar system, Universe could be created with no higher intelligence than Mind, no higher agency is required. Is this the universe you live in?

If you do, perhaps you may have no need for a God, no need for Mystery, no need for any Divine Feminine, perhaps even no need for Feeling, no need for a living Nature, nature spirits and elementals, no need for any god higher than Mind. In this conception, intelligence-agency up to and including Mind is sufficient to explain everything.

The above question brings us face to face with underlying assumptions Natural Scientists in the 1880s refused to struggle with, which they had no rhetoric to struggle with.

Q: How come we can consider this question now in 2017?

A: Because Sherlock-Holmes-ian thinking has lost its glamor. Heartfelt thinking, whole-brained thinking is what Cultural Creatives aspire to since 1985 at least. We’re pretty sure now things exist beyond the merely mental Mind; things like:

– Mystery,

– some expressions of the Divine Feminine,

– some need for Feeling which balances Thinking,

– some future, honored place for Nature in mainstream culture,

– some place for nature spirits and elementals,

– some future need for a higher God, however uniquely conceived individually.

The above questions present each of us a delicious (existential) dilemma, in our Inner Game of Life.

A) Either we align with an atom-matter-solar system-Universe created with and by no higher agency than the masculine-patriarchal Mind.

B) Or, we incorporate into our models of atom-matter-solar system-Universe-God higher agencies than mere Mind.

Q: What agencies exist above Mind?

A: According to Spiritual Geography 101, PACME, in Creation, above Mind in frequency, is some or all of these higher agencies: Mystery, some version of a Divine Feminine, Feeling to balance Thinking, nature spirits and elementals; and finally, a God higher than Mind, as uniquely conceived individually.

Full discussion: You have FIVE bodies PACME; Spiritual Geography 101 (99 cents)

https://www.amazon.com/bodies-Spiritual-Geography-Practices-Medicine-ebook/dp/B007SIEC3S/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1476587865&sr=8-1&keywords=You+have+FIVE+bodies+PACME%3B+Spiritual+Geography+101

Changing beliefs, accustoming ourself to new paradigms

My first Waldorf teacher training, challenged the cultural paradigms I was schooled in from several directions. Even with a pretty good metaphysical background, I was challenged to open up to more living and alive Goethe-Steinerian paradigms of educating, of living, creating and community.

Readers now, may feel similarly challenged confronted with the above questions. Relax. Take two to four weeks to “live with” how your Inner and Outer world would change if you lived in a universe where Mother-Father-God was as close to you as the atoms in your body. See if the idea suits you in your own Inner Game of Life.

Q: How do I incorporate agency higher than Mind into my model of the atom?

A: Ether is Mother God in Creation. Father God is positive qualities penetrating each Ether vortex.

Mother-God, Divine Feminine as “ether”

No better experimental evidence for the Mother-God, Divine Feminine as Ether exists than the experiments documented in “The Vortex Atom: A Victorian Theory of Everything” by Helge Kragh. “The Vortex Atom: A Victorian Theory of Everything” by Helge Kragh, 83 pages. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0498.2002.440102.x/abstract

It recounts the experimental evidence of the 1850s-1880s relevant to the following conclusions. With rhetorics converged in 2017, old ideas about Ether can be summarized this way:

1) Ether is everywhere and all encompassing in Creation, PACME, in this Universe.

2) Ether is another media analogous to air and water. Unlike air-water, physical phenomena of friction is not present and does not apply, given current thinking.

3) In mysterious ways poorly-understood in 2017, Ether varies its density around planets and people in such a way such no such thing as “wind,” “drift” or “drag” exists. Only without the phenomena of friction could the planets continue to rotate virtually forever in the same orbit at the same speed despite, being immersed in Ether. Current thinking is the absence of “wind,” “drift” or “drag” is explained by the sustaining intention of the Divine Feminine.

4) In the 3D human experience we experience the sustaining intention of the Divine Feminine primarily as “inertia.” To reframe Newton, it is not gravity keeping the planets in their course but primarily inertia.

On Earth, a rolling ball slows and stops due to ground and air-wind resistance. The object’s movement subsists over time, diverted into otehr forms of energy.

In outer space, wehre Ether is the only remaining media, once set in motion, an object is sustained indefinitely in its motion. Absent all friction, heavenly bodies can continue their motion un-impeded. The Electric Universe model suggests it is electrical phenomena which most commonly disturbs and rearranges the orbits of heavenly bodies.

Q: No gravity at all, only inertia?

A: No, in mysterious ways poorly-understood in 2017, some of Newton’s gravity, a force “acting at a distance,” is possibly more simply understood as “life ether” effects, a topic in Guenther’s Wachsmuth’s book, beyond our scope here.

5) Ether is invisible to animal eyesight. It’s visible to advanced clairvoyant vision; however, each clairvoyant perceives the aura (ether) of even the same sample subject, uniquely. No two clairvoyants are expected to view the ether (aura) of the same subject 100% coincidentally. Between any two experienced clairvoyants reporting observations of the same subject we expect at least 10% variation between the two sets of observations. More variation may or may not be acceptable, depending on your purposes.

6) Ether is energy. All energy has intelligence. Each frequency of energy has somewhat unique function; and therefore, somewhat unique intelligence.

7) Ether exists at multiple frequencies; different frequencies definitely have different properties, functions and intelligence.

8) The multiple functions-frequencies-intelligences within Ether permit Ether to multi-task. The function of multi-tasking is characteristic of the immune system in every animal. The function of multi-tasking is especially characteristic of adult human beings who can walk, talk, chew gum, talk on the phone, all at the same time.

9) Ether (whose “home” in in the upper etheric realm) is the source of Mystery; Ether as Mystery itself. “Mystery” is defined here as any phenomena or feeling which Conscious Waking Self is unable to directly cognize with left-brain Thinking alone, any phenomena or feeling beyond Thinking alone, which cannot be contained by linear-sequential left-brain thinking.

10) In mysterious ways poorly-understood in 2017, Ether varies its properties enabling it to behave analogously to particles and behave analogously to waves in the same medium. Hence the idea of light as particles (photons); and, light as wavelenths; and, light as “wavicles.” Current thinking is this mystery may be unravelled with the Goethe-Steiner idea of all light, all color is invisible, without a perceiver, without a medium in which to express itself. In this we may have the “mutable” quality discussed in astrology.

This also relates to the astronomical question of whether the stars can be seen in the sky outside the envelope of the Earth’s etheric body. Many proponents claim starlight requires at least the etheric envelope of the Earth if not also the field of air, for stars to be seen by an observer standing on the Earth.

Q: Didn’t the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment disprove Ether?

A: No. Not even the experimenters claimed this conclusion. The experiment did disprove Ether has neither any perceptible “wind” nor “drag” as mediums of both water and air exhibit. In air and water, any object goes faster “with the flow,” “with the current,” than it can against the current. No one disputes the integrity of the experiment nor the experimenters. They simply disproved Ether has neither of frictional and resistance properties familiar to use in air and water.

The male-competitive nature of Natural Science in the 1800s was such that the possibility of both atomic weight model, ether and relativity being ALL partly true was rejected. Michelson-Morley’s experiment was indeed used to “bash” Ether by the “trolls” and “ether haters” of its day.

Ether as Vishnu the Hindu god

Dg- vortex cornucopia

Hindu literature is full of good characterizations of Ether. Given the status of women in ancient India, ancient Hindus could conceive of Ether as neither Feminine nor Queenly. They could only imagine Ether as Kingly, as masculine. When we reframe Ether as feminine in character, Lakshmi simply becomes another happy, generous expression of the Divine Feminine.

Babylonians characterized it as the “Womb of Creation.” Hindus characterized Ether as Vishnu:

Vishnu is the preserver-maintainer of the worlds of Creation. His primary task is protect dharma and maintain the universal order. He encourages people to be on the side of dharma and pursue their religious duties as householders hopefully with a spiritual bent of mind.

His consort Lakshmi provides all the material resources necessary for the management of material concerns. Vishnu and Lakshmi are therefore an ideal choice for people who want to live ordinary lives and pursue materialism with an eye towards religion and spirituality. …

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/hindutrinity.asp

Vishnu is described as having the divine color of clouds (dark-blue). The dark color represents the passive and formless ether, a great quality for a god. ~ http://rmfzee.com/thailand2010/vishnu.htm

Vishnu is the preserver In the Trimurti concept, Lord Vishnu is the aspect of God associated with the cosmic function of preservation. … His most popular and worshipped forms and incarnations are Lord Rama, Lord Krishna… Vishnu represents space Consciousness, the all-pervading ether. Ether, a timeless substance, is not space; yet, occupies all apparently empty space, the substratum of the manifest cosmos, potentially containing all other elements. He is depicted as blue in color to represent the vast, endless and limitless aspect in which the passion of Lord Brahma corries out Creation.

…ether as a stem substance [mother of four more particularized ethers, which are in turn the mother all more specialized elements we see on the Periodic Table. ]

Thru Ether’s presence in and control over [behind] all the other elements, this homogenous “element” envelops and penetrates, connects and unifies material factors. Thru all this Ether exerts its regulatory influence.

Described by Western scientists as an incomprehensible element, Ether not only transmits light but is also a carrier of sense quality [including feeling and Feeling], sound and vitality. Not only prana the power which breathes life and provides vitality, but also energies like sunrays, sound vibrations of Aum and mantra chanting resonate Ether as well.

…Lord Vishnu is the inner cause, a cohesive force which not only forms the most subtle core of our body with its centripetal tendency holding things together in relationship to one another. Present everywhere; and yet, nowhere to be found, he not only controls and regulates life but also connects us with others in the universe. …the timeless order of Nature which continuously shifts and transforms thereby ensuring continuity of manifest existence. (p. 42-43 “Milk, Honey and Grapes: Simple Hinduism Concepts for Everyone” By Kiran K. Mehta Books.Google.com)

In Vishnu and early Western ideas of ether, we begin to approach historical ideas of holism, of “both AND;” including, the Buddhist idea of the etheric realms as “neither this nor that,” the feminine attribute of voicing what she does not want, the endless perceived difficulty to articulate what specifically she does want.

1880s understood the Divine Feminine

In 2017 Goethean terms, the 1880s scientists and Theosophists understood the etheric nature of the Divine Feminine as well as anyone before or since was able to understand Her, in natural scientific terms.

What was NOT understood in the 1880s was the voidful character of the Father God.

This is where they got stuck. They could not imagine how empty voids, in the center of each etheric vortex, could convey or manifest the quality of physical-material solidity and weight, the most familiar quality of physical-material matter in the 1800s.

Masculine God as Void-ful

To address this we go outside conventional Enlightenment science and into Light and Sound literature, mystical literature. This apparently begins with Guru Nanak in the 1400s in India. Pre-literary oral literature may exist. If earlier oral literature exists, it appears to be poorly documented. If you know otherwise, please inform me.

In my readings in Light and Sound literature, I’ve come across the idea of the masculine principle as voidful. Where the Feminine principle is manifestation, the Masculine counterpart is elusive in physical terms, to say the least. David Deida in his contrasting the Masculine and Feminine principles suggests where the Feminine is connected with “fullness” and giving birth, the Masculine is connected with “creative emptiness.”

Let’s apply these to a single atom. When do we see a natural image of the Divine Feminine spinning its medium (ether) so new forms can be birthed–where is the Father? In the spinning center, in the void, emptiness of the center of the vortex, where ether has vacated, this is where the Father can be, can penetrate, can express, can contribute.

Q: How can so an empty, invisible force create visible, ponderable matter?

A: Let’s recall Rudolf Seiner’ saying, “All physical matter is movement come to rest.”

How can we characterize the Father in the center void of spinning vortices of Ether? I propose the most useful characterization is ‘intelligence of higher frequency and higher agency than the merely mental.’

Q: What’s above the Mind?

A: If we consult basic Spiritual Geography 101, PACME, we find the maps-charts of Light and Sound groups agree above the mind is the unconscious-mythological-etheric plane. This is where archetypes and fairy tales people live out, exist and have influence over slower frequencies PACM.

Q: What’s above the Etheric plane?

A: Soul and Above. What’s there? As best I can understand mentally, this is the source of all positive qualities, each Positive Quality each ensouled by a tribe of living beings agreed to support this quality and make it available in Creation below, PACME.

Guess what? “Realness,” “matter,” and what we know as “physical mass-weight” all exist Above Soul as positive qualities.

Having trouble with this? Instead of “mater” think “realness,” “reality.” What does your belief system tell you? Do such qualities come from primarily physical matter? Or could ponderable physical matter be a metaphor for Reality, as a Positive Quality, in Soul and Above?

What if physical-material matter was as much metaphor as a property-province of “reality”? What if physical matter posseses qualities of “realness,” “mass” and “weight,” these made made possible, sponsored by, living Beings in Soul and Above who keep “Reality, “mass,” and “weight” alive?

Q: You mean what I experience as the weight and heft of a simple rock in my hand, might track back to the deeds of spiritual beings ensouling qualities of “realness,” “mass” and “weight”?

A: Yes. Not only one rock, all 3D physical matter. Why? Because from higher perspective, 3D physical matter is primarily a metaphor children require–that’s us. To give us something we can work with, play with, stand on, and throw at each other, we need “matter.”

Later on, when we mature-up, we learn what is “real” what possesses “mass” and “weight” is not primarily physical. Rather what is “real” having “mass” and “weight” is healthy values, truly human values.

Guess what? Truly human values are invisible again. Could invisible positive qualities of “mass,” “weight” and “realness” exist in the empty place in the center of the Ether vortex central in each atom? You tell me. Seems logically consistent to me. How does it strike you? Take your time.

Conclusion

One view of where 1880s natural scientists went off track is they wanted an atom, an atomic model, divorced from and seaparate from, everything personal.

They wanted an atom, an atomic model, divorced from and seaparate from, everything subjective. This is how Sherlock-Holmes thinkers thought at the puberty of the independent-critical thinking.

They wanted an atom, an atomic model, divorced from and seaparate from all human qualites.

This means they wanted an atom without even the human quality of integrity, of “gravitas.”

Wehre do we see “weight” and “gravitas” in human beings? One good example is John Morton, usually towards teh end of hsi hour-long talks. When teh Traveler energy comes thru him more fully, John exhibits the quality of solidity, weight, gravity and integrity.

Recommended Bibliography for lay readers

Man or Matter, 3rd Ed, Ernst Lehrs, 1985, first 12 chapters only.

Secret Life of Nature, Peter Thompkins, 2008 http://www.eso-garden.com/specials/the_secret_life_of_nature.pdf

2017 Review of David Deida’s The Way of the Superior Man – http://minimolist.com/superiorman/

Supplementary bibliography – for researchers

Detailed and readable historical account document online: “The Vortex Atom: A Victorian Theory of Everything” by Helge Kragh, 83 pages. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0498.2002.440102.x/abstract

Direct Observation of Atoms through Clairvoyance http://www.gaia.dk/bigfiles/OC/OccultAtoms.htm

E. Lester Smith, “Occult Chemistry Re-Evaluated” http://omln.ce-ma-s.net/_media/science/lester_smith_-_occult_chemistry_re-evaluated_-_1982.pdf

Discussion of Michelson-Morley and Einstein in light of later thinking on Ether: http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/ether.htm

Bibliography of books and original articles on Occult Chemistry — 1895-1996 – http://hpb.narod.ru/tph/TPH_OCBB.HTM

Modern Alchemy: Occultism and the Emergence of Atomic Theory By Mark Morrisson

The Lightness of Being, The Frank Wilczek Web Site. Welcome to my world — and your world too!http://www.lightnessofbeingbook.com/

Notes for those interested

It may be “gravity” itself is a misnomer. There is no gravity–except in the mental realm and except in language (mental) where the whole is fragmented into parts.

The ether is the one thing in Creation which cannot be fragmented. Newton isolated Gravity and gravity effects and explained much by isolating one part of the elephant.

A full understanding of gravity requires viewing it as one phenomena of a multi-functioning entity. In this entity, gravity expresses, levity expresses, attraction expresses, repulsion expresses.

Ether cannot be described as any one of these expression. Ether is all of these expressions ~ 2016

Grain of sand vs. grain of wheat

The Etheric: Broadening Science through Anthroposophy, Volume 1: The World … By Ernst Marti, new translation, 2017

Marti poses good questions:

Why does a grain of sand simply lie there, wet or not. while a seed grain once wet will sprout?

Why does water surrender completely to gravity, while sap in a plant rises upwards? p. 46

“Gravity (but this is only one aspect of this force).” p. 47

Marti appears not astute enuf to conceptualize a force which has gravity as one of its expressions, as one of several functions it multi-tasks. Marti tends to conceive of “ether” as a kind of Goethean Ur (whole) phenomena. This romanticism was common in Anthroposophists in to the 1980s.

ZetaTalk idea of gravity particles

I’m struck with the idea of gravity and repulsion, keeping all matter in constant motion from the Zetas. This is exactly what young men and women experience, attraction, marriage, then repulsion. Gravity first in relationships (attraction), then levity (repulsion due to over-familiarity)? Unwieldy.

Pro-attraction~repulsion we have Gerald Pollack’s water studies, the boundary phenomena. Close to the living walls of arteries and veins, the blood is pushed away from the walls by a molecule or two. This reduces friction to flow of blood and sap. How low? Not sure.

It may be that gravity and anti-gravity (levity) are the same thing or some rolling mixture-rhythmic manifestations of the mixing of the four ethers.

Synonyms for ether

Orgone energy (Wilhelm Reich)

Vril energy (Gerry Vasillatos)

Non-physical energies,

Life-force,

Bio-energy,

Prana (Breatharian Jasmuheen)

Chi,

Od,

Odic, along with many other names.

What ether is not

Ether is not electromagnetic waves. Terminological confusion has persisted right down to this day, between ether technology and radiowaves. Such confusion having contributed the throttling and ridicule of American research.

It should also be clarified how electromagnetic waves are “carried” by the ether. Without ether there would be nothing for the wave to transport through when traversing the vacuum of space.

Uncovery of the etheric body

The etheric body is uncovered through imagination. Imagination is a sub-function of Feeling.

Why do we put it this way? Because it is our wonderful left-brain rational mentalizing-calculating capacities–divorced from Feeling–who stand int eh way of more whole-brained human experience.

Imagination is the first, earliest cooperation-collaboration between left brain capacities of thinking-feeling and right brain capacities of thinking-feeling. Thru imagination we have enhanced consciousness, striving toward imaginative knowledge

it is possible to indicate quite exactly what one does in order to discover the etheric within a sense organ through imagination. It is not true the idea of an etheric body is arrived at in any kind of fantastic way. One arrives at this idea by first developing imagination and then — at first for oneself — demonstrating with a suitable object how the content of imaginative cognition can unite with its object in the same way mathematical thought unites with its object.

… findings to which imaginative cognition brings us

… finding to which feeling cognition brings us

Anthroposophy and Science

Schmidt Number: S-4420

On-line since: 31st July, 2009 Lecture III Stuttgart — March 18, 1921 http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA324/English/MP1991/19210318p01.html

Harpo Marx meets Dr. Frankenstein

Harpo Marx’s contribution to whole-brain theory and practice.  Redeeming Feeling capacity in holistic brain study

Harpo&Lucy

dg-Harpo

We need some context to understand Harpo Marx’s contribution to whole-brain theory and practice.

At the height of the right~Left Brain fad, 1975-1985, it was common to hear people–inaccurately–describe themselves as strictly “right-brained” or “left-brained.” The left-brainers bragged about their math skills; right-brainers emphasized their creativity and intuition.

Which brain hemisphere do you think Harpo was more expressive of?

Which brain hemisphere do you think Groucho was more expressive of?

Before we reinforce erroneous over-generalizations of right~left brain contrast, let’s set the record straight.

Our waking psyche is multi-intelligent. Waking adults enjoy the use of multiple intelligences. Without multiple intelligences humans would only have only instinct and habit to solve problems.

Ever see a cat with its head stuck in a tight-fitting small bag? The cat only has instincts and reflexes to get out of the bag. The cat backs up. The cat jumps. The cat is unable to think, “Maybe if I put my two paws up and grasp the bag, this could knock or push the bag off.”

If you ask them, an adult human can think of 5-10 ways to get its head out of a paper bag. Ability to think of multiple solutions to the same problem is highly suggestive of Multiple intelligences.

Full discussion of Howard Gardner Multiple Intelligences 1.0 and MI 2.0, can be found in Balance on All Levels PACME+Soul.

Back to Harpo Marx. Harpo’s humor arises very much from what he limits himself to.

Does Harpo limit himself more to his right brain hemisphere or left brain hemisphere?

Right, you got it.

Harpo pretends he has no language ability and no math computation ability. He limits himself to responses to life a creative child (or a creative, silent Buster Keaton) comes up with. We like Harpo because he has no Inner critic and refuses to let anyone else’s Inner Critic or cultural norms dampen his enthusiasm and joy for life and people.

Harpo makes it possible to contrast his one-sided cartoon of right brain expressions with a “cartoon” of left brain hemisphere expressions.

Our left hemisphere is dominant in language processing, formulating thoughts and words you have not expessed before. Left brain is dominant in interpreting what you hear. It handles the duties of speaking beyond screams, yells, cursing and other more guttural (gut brain) habitual and learned expressions of emotional liking and disliking.

Left brain is also dominant in constructing logical sequences in–among other areas–exact mathematical computations.
To simplify, in waking adults, left brain is dominant in activity where rational Thinking-Feeling are at the fore.

Harpo shows us what humans would be like if we turned off our left brain.

In Horse Feathers, Harpo grabs a book off the shelf, opens it, laughs at the contents; then immediately, throws the book into a roaring fireplace. Later in the scene, we see him again involved in his attack on written language. This time he is shoveling a large pile of books into the fireplace ~ p. 100, A Century of the Marx Brothers by Joseph Mills

Harpo proposes, if we turned off our left brain, if we approached the written word more skeptically, we would get a lot less work done; and, have a whole lot more fun.

Whole-brainedness proposes a balance of left~right is best. If you need encouragement to redeem your right brain abilities, Harpo is your inspiration.

Which brain hemisphere do you think Chico was more expressive of? That’s right, a little bit of both right and left.

Harpo shows us a human living more in Feeling

One of the big philosophical struggles being worked out as we speak, is how to reframe science-technology so it serves life and truly human values; instead of, too many Dr. Frankenstein creations, one after another.

A simple way to language this is we need a science more aligned with and attuned to Feeling.

Fortunately how a right brain Harpo science works out and dovetails with left brain-only science is already accomplished. It’s the topic of the Three Sciences we use everyday, a major topic of this website. Full discussion in Goethean Holistic Science and the Three Sciences We Use Everyday for Holistic Practitioners and Self-Healers: Chapters 19-20 from Balance on All Levels-PACME+Soul Plus Related Essays.

First Order Science is theory and experimental method for, the rational choices we make using feeling and intuition. Harpo Marx could be the cartoon mascot–but then–so could Goethe, the West’s earliest holistic thinker.

It’s fun for me to re-imagine the conversation between the one-eyed, color blind scientist and Goethe as a conversation between Harpo Marx and Dr. Frankenstein.

To Learn More
The Card of Destiny for both Harpo Marx and Sai Baba is the 10Hearts. You can look up its characteristic expressions.

BIO ~ Author and Health Intuitive Bruce Dickson is a wounded healer who completed his Heroes Journey this lifetime. He likes to share the Elixirs of Life he found, with those interested. “Service to myself and others is why I get out of bed each morning.” Find him at http://www.Amazon.com/Bruce-Dickson-MSS/e/B007SNVG46

Waldorf-methods approach to learning acupuncture meridians

(Hint – use polarities and patterns)

A Waldorf-methods approach to learning meridians.  

Excerpted from a larger work, to be incorporated into the book, Meridian Metaphors

A whole-brained, grasp of meridians, in a humanistic-holistic Western framework, includes BOTH Memorization of names and placement; AND, Encouraging direct experience of flow in meridians

The present author has taken no TCM nor acupuncture training or certification. I don’t have access to TCM staff and faculty at any TCM college or training institute. My research is limited to fairly wide exposure to TCM literature, a few acupuncture practitioners and the internet.

2017 research with Mr. Google suggests by the standards of Holistic-Humanistic Psychology, student training methods for learning acupuncture meridians remain rudimentary everywhere I can see online. Hopefully live courses for students have additional humanity and promote Intuitive Feeling equally with Intuitive Thinking. No Meridian Coloring Book seems to exist, might be a good idea too.

“Rudimentary by the standards of Holistic-Humanistic Psychology” points to existing teaching methods limited almost exclusively to learning names and physical placement. Online I can find no encouragement for students to feel their own meridians and the meridian flows in clients–outside of Donna Eden’s Meridian Tracing courses at Innersource.net. Donna Eden and her teachers use Holistic-Humanistic Psychology and humanistic psychotherapy as their idealogical foundation.

If readers know of TCM and meridian training schools explicitly using Humanistic Psychology-psychotherapy as an idealogical foundation, I would love to know of them and list them here.

What Mr. Google tells us is, existing student training methods for learning acupuncture meridians are out of balance towards left brain intelligences. The orientation of meridian learning is strongly titled towards only the Outer Game of Life.

What about Asian acupuncture literature? Asian acupuncture literature is even more strongly titled towards outer-orientation of meridian learning than Western literature and methods.

Asian TCM student training methods for learning acupuncture, accessible online, suggest brute force memorization (making clear inner mental pictures) backed up by hands-on clinical practice may be the only accepted training methods.

I’m in favor of both memorization and clinical experience. These are needed aspects of learning meridians.

Let’s also consider what’s missing, the Inner Game side of meridians.

Western meridian training, since 1974, starting with Touch for Health; and then, Donna Eden’s Meridian Tracing (InnerSource.net) encourages students to attend to, and expand, the feeling experience of meridians.

In living meridians, the feeling quality of flow is colored by:

– If energy is flowing–or not,

– Is energy flowing in healthy direction of flow–or not?

– Perceiving another quality when energy flows backwards, against its healthy direction of flow,

– Perceiving stuck energy, uncertain, undecided which direction to flow,

– Perceiving different qualities in each bilateral meridians of a pair,

For those wishing a whole-brained, left~right brain grasp of meridians, in a humanistic-holistic Western framework, the endgame is BOTH:

– Memorization of names and placement,

– Encouraging direct Feeling perception of flow in meridians.

To be clear, the first appeals to left brain (us from neck-up), objective observation is encouraged. The second appeals to right brain (us from neck-down), individual, subjective (inner) percepts of flow, color, taste, smell, soun

    1. Whole-brained approach to learning meridians

As a trained Waldorf teacher and an Energy Medicine practitioner, I’m aware a Waldorf-methods approach can be applied to learning meridians. A Waldorf approach appears to be simpler, clearer and more conducive to whole-brain practice.

In Grade One, the whole of mathematics and number is reduced to polarities, patterns and characters. One example, the abstract idea of odd and even numbers is presented as Boy and Girl numbers, using kids in the class to alternate and demonstrate this.

The whole of drawing is reduced to a polarity of straight and curved in Nature and architecture.

In Grade Five and later, history and biography are made more vivid and impressive by emphasizing polar opposite expressions, even in the same person.

Waldorf teaching methods for any new topic suggest starting with the most obvious, largest polarity; progress to smaller nuances as students can grasp additional finer details.

Many readers will recognize this as “whole-to-part” thinking. Indeed, this is part of the method. The rest is “not to define but to characterize” (Steiner paraphrase). “Naming” and “Definition” are left brain exercises proclaiming and affirming placement and proximity to other ideas.

“Characterization” is a right brain exercise, related to first impressions, caricature, representation (including parody) and gut instincts. Do both. For audiences younger than puberty, Characterization will be preferred over Definition. For audiences after puberty, the reverse. If you want whole-brain thinkers, after puberty–DO BOTH.

Q: What about Characterizing meridians by their elemental quality?

A: All well and good. However please notice left brain’s tendency to use elemental association as a tool for mere PLACEMENT in a TCM scheme of elements. What’s missing we can now add is encouraging students to FEEL FLOWS, in whichever sensory channel is most-open for them now. I believe feeling-sensing the elemental quality directly is a much advanced skill, which few ever master, short of those already highly clairvoyant.

    1. A Waldorf-methods approach to learning meridians

What polarities and patterns are perceptible in acupuncture meridians? Many.

Leaving aside the necessary grouping meridians by elements for the moment, here’s how I would sequence instruction. First:

    1. Origin of the term “meridian” in acupuncture

The term “meridian” was introduced by Soulie de Morant as the translation for the Chinese word “luo.” Yet a more accurate description would be “vessels,” “pathways” or “channels,” and these terms are sometimes used interchangeably. “Meridian” is typically used to describe the invisible longitudinal lines of the earth, while “vessels” are pathways through which vital substances flow throughout the body.

http://www.yogiapproved.com/health-wellness/qi-meridians-yin-yang-depth-look-acupuncture/

Second, leave aside Governing Vessel and Conception Vessel. These are much deeper than the 12 more superficial meridians. The two are easy to treat as a pair. Use these to go deeper after students have a feel for the realm of the 12.

    1. Overall front~back pattern of flow

Third: If you had to make a wet-on-wet watercolor painting of the meridians (hint-hint), using red for upflow and blue for downflow, how would you paint?

Please do honor student guesses about representing the polarity of red-upflow and blue-downflow in their paintings. No wrong way to approximate this. The only way to wrongly approximate this is to paint nothing at all.

Afterwards, after class review of student work, lead them to consider these possibilities:

– On the front of the trunk, minus the arms, the main direction is upwards (Stomach meridian in only major meridian going down on front of trunk. Conception also flows up).

– On the sides, Gall Bladder is altogether a downward flow on entire side of the body, both sides (no contradicting meridians whatsoever among the 12).

– On the back, the major direction is down (Back of the body below shoulders “belongs” to Bladder Meridian. Upward flow is represented by the Governing Vessel. Leaving it aside for the moment).

– Our head altogether resists such simple ideas. My suggestion is the cowl shape, like in the Assassin’s Creed game and movie. Up to you if it’s red or blue. I dunno.

Then have them do a second painting.

To Learn More

For those interested, behind the four elements, is the pattern of etheric formative forces, discussed most clearly in Man or Batter, 3rd Ed. (1985).

BIO ~ Author and Health Intuitive Bruce Dickson is a wounded healer who completed his Heroes Journey this lifetime. He likes to share the Elixirs of Life he found, with those interested. “Service to myself and others is why I get out of bed each morning.” Find him at http://www.Amazon.com/Bruce-Dickson-MSS/e/B007SNVG46
– Green Spirituality 2.0 ~ http://GreenSpirituality20.cmslauncher.cloud
https://HolisticBrainBalance.wordpress.com
http://blog.GoetheanScience.net

Predictability and Reproducibility in the Three Sciences

Two immutable tenets of Second Order ‘ego survival’ science or “hard science;” also, present untenable paradoxes for both First and Third Order sciences.

As far as I know, only Three Orders of Science we use everyday has resolves this “paradox.”

Part of the resolution here is more attention paid to when ‘two things are true at the same time.’

In early 2017 current mainstream science paradigm is based on Predictability and Reproducibility. Why? It goes back to mercantilism in the Renaissance, codified into science in the 1800s.

This thinking is, ‘if we can predict what will happen, we can control what will happen. If we can control what will happen; hopefully, we can then make money off what we know will happen.’

Old Boys Clubs, Boys Clubs and Patriarchy are comfortable thinking this way.
Take for example investments made in stock market and commodities trading. Predictability and Reproducibility are the Holy Grail.

Before that, consider investments made in the Age of Discovery, funding the great age of ocean exploration, hoping to find gold–or at least slaves, tobacco, tea, rum.

In Western culture, the Age of Discovery or the Age of Exploration, was an informal and loosely defined European historical period. It extended from the end of the 1400s thru much of the 1800s. It was characterized by extensive and intensive overseas exploration.

During this Age, a large fraction of European free capital was invested in supplying, staffing, launching and collecting profits from slave, commercial and colonization efforts made possible by large sailing ships. Looking back, this age was the beginning of globalization (paraphrased from Wikipedia).

Predictability and Reproducibility were major factors in deciding whether to invest your money in this or that seafaring expedition. Since the Renaissance especially, Predictability and Reproducibility in the marketplace have been desperately sought.

To earthly human egos focussed on only physical survival and profit, Predictability remains elusive–therefore valuable–if you can assure it.

Isaac Newton in his time wanted desperately a predictable system of physics.

He looked for and hoped for a ‘mechanical precision,’ a physics “machine” which could explain many or all observable phenomena. The hope was, if you understood how the machine works, you can understand the whole of Nature.

My view is Newton uncovered some of the laws of inertia, which he believed to be laws of a sub-phenomena of inertia we call “gravity.” Newton believed with contemporary and later scientists, if humans can understand the workings of Nature, humans can understand the workings of God.

Later thinkers combined Predictability and Reproducibility with “cause and effect” so successfully, they began to believe every natural phenomena could be predicted, controlled and profited from. Why do you think Monsanto is copyrighting and patenting genes? To predict, control and profit from them for investors.

Before Climate Change became a pressing crisis, Predictability plus Reproducibility plus Cause and Effect was good, safe, and secure. So they thought, so they said.

Seeking for Predictability and Reproducibility inadvertently colored Western culture.

Survivalist egos began to hope as life becomes predictable, humans will feel more safe and secure. Earthly egos think this way; and, let’s honor they do; because, this is true up to a point. Without Predictability and Reproducibility in physical sciences, we would have no indoor plumbing nor hot and cold running water.

Let’s remember tho what a life with TOO MUCH Predictability and Reproducibility looks like. It looks like imprisonment, incarceration, where every day is the day, your life is no more than a cog in prison machine routines.

Q: Didn’t Quantum science expand the old science usefully?

A: The Quantum Discussion at the dinner table, beginning in the 1990s, engendered hope in many; that was good. However the Quantum Discussion became more science fictional than practical in nature. It did not reform, evolve or expand the science paradigm of the 1800s where it was fundamentally disturbed and out of synch with the human experience of the 1990s and beyond.

The science paradigm of the 1800s gave us indoor electrification and indoor plumbing. 1800s science is not disturbed there. It’s very effective in electro-mechanical affairs. Where the paradigm is most disturbed is in its incomplete moral, ethical and philosophical maturity.

Quantum Discussion among science popularizers and at the dinner table, did indeed “soften” the edges of “hard science.” Gregg Braden and others intuit correctly science philosophy from the 1800s-1900s is immature and needs to evolve. However the specific remedies proposed by the Quantum Discussion were largely a return to “religion is the opium of the masses” in the clothing of science.

The solutions Quantum Discussers will ultimately find workable, in about 100 years, are etheric in nature. Why can’t Quantum scientists discuss etheric phenomena openly now? Because it’s discussion is inextricably linked with moral, ethical and philosophical maturity. Dr. Frankenstein is more alive, stronger and healthier than he ever was in the 1800s. Dr. F. is now employed by corporate investors and academic corporations who wish to explore, experiment, and innovate OUTSIDE of moral, ethical and philosophical maturity.

We call this, “work made for hire.” Just do your work, take your paycheck, don’t think about how your creation changes you, don’t think about its implications, don’t think about the consequences of your creation.

The Three Sciences does not wish to alter Predictability and Reproducibility in Second Order Science. That’s not where we’re having a problem. Whee our science paradigm is dysfunctional is Predictability and Reproducibility over-generalized to apply to First Order (subjective) activity; and, Third Order (the shared commons) activity.
Embracing Principles of Uncertainty

In 1935 Heisenberg introduced natural unpredictability, the Principles of Uncertainty. Did earthly survivalist egos joyfully leap to embrace Uncertainty as a needed balance for strict hard science paradigm thought? No. Predictably, earthly survivalist egos clung desperately to Predictability-Reproducibility-Cause-Effect.

Why does this paradigm still rule many minds and all media in early 2017? Because it is in concert with and supports the paradigm of corporate-consumerism which needs Dr. Frankenstein not Goethe working for them.

How little the genius of natural unpredictability has influenced the 1800s science paradigm, is the Electric Universe theory. Mainstream prejudice against many facts contradicting the gravity-only universe is rampant.

Electric Universe ideas go back to early 1900s research into the aurora borealis in Scandinavia. Velikovsky in the 1950s was a fore-runner of Electric Universe ideas. The main website got going in 2009.

Remember, prior to Electric Universe ideas, earthly survivalist egos embraced a universe 100% run on gravitation. No batteries (electricity) required.

As more and more NASA space scientists trickle towards Electric Universe ideas, what we realize is adding electricity to a gravity-run solar system and universe–makes things less predictable.

How slowly Electric Universe ideas have spread among astronomers suggests how attached even they are to getting paid to verify and validate the predictability of celestial phenomena based on gravity alone–even when the facts contradict this.

The Electric Universe controversy is ongoing. People still want to cling to simple mechanical cogs and wheels, Newtonian explanations of cosmic events. This is one of the negative aspects of “the clockwork universe.”

Role of double-blind experiments

One advance which reduced superstition and subjective errors in observations in the 1700s-1900s was double-blind experiments. Well-designed experiments ruled out and eliminated individual-subjective beliefs, attitudes, biases and preferences altogether. That was good.

On the bad side, double-blind experiments were used to eliminate and invalidate individual-subjective thoughts and feelings of highly skilled experimenters and scientists–where their subjective impressions, thoughts and feelings were relevant to various commons and to humankind as a whole. Nuclear bombs, biological weapons and fracking come to mind.

Hard scientist trolls like to invoke the ethos of double-blind experiments to exclude, invalidate, discredit and if possible, to prohibit whistle-blowers who wish to warn the public Dr. Frankenstein is at it again.

Double-blind experimental protocols attempt to keep experimenters out of every experiment–even tho, each experimenter is both an observer and a direct participant.

Leaving the experiencer out of an experience is why PTSD was not studied until only recent decades.

Leaving the experience out of an experience is why some Army doctors remain mystified by the extreme PTSD of drone pilots, stationed here in the US, flying armed drones with guns and rockets, overseas. Unlike bomber pilots in WW II, drone pilots must circle back to see and report on the physical and human destruction they cause.

If scientists knew how expectation and anticipation, belief and attitude, thought and feeling, choice and decision are the raw materials of change, the common denominators of change, maybe some would be more honoring of individual-subjective thoughts and feelings.

First Order Science is where individual-subjective thoughts and feelings are accepted, honored, instigated, so we can learn from them.

For purposes of personal-spiritual growing, individual-subjective thoughts and feelings are raw materials of self-transformation. How else could it be? The only motivation to eliminate them from experiments is because they interfere with results potentially profitable to investors.

Keeping out individual-subjective thoughts and feelings so everything can remain predictable to investors and controllable by corporations, is the cultural fight, the battle, ongoing now in science.

Propaganda to make all natural and subjective phenomena predictable and controllable is a losing battle. A clumsy, inaccurate, imprecise awakening thru quantum mechanics –which embraces Uncertainty–has already begun in mainstream media.

We can no longer retreat back into our old friend Predictability. The cat is out of the bag, so to speak.

More informed “New physics” is not replacing “old physics.” It is not an either-or world. Rather, two additional paradigms of science, categories of rational human thinking, are taking their place on either side of “old science.”

Out of this, perhaps in 100 years, an expanded science paradigm will emerge. It will be capable of taking up where Goethe, Rudolf Steiner and Ernst Lehrs left off in uncovering natural etheric forces and their phenomena. This new whole will definitely be greater than the sum of its parts.

References

Inspired by, massively revised and adapted from a much longer talk by
Lazaris online 2016: http://www.lazaris.com/blog/shifting-paradigms-another-look
Author, Health Intuitive Bruce Dickson can be found at https://HolisticBrainBalance.wordpress.com

Amazon Author Central page   There you will find three book series:
– Best Practices in Energy Medicine.
– Holistic Brain Balance,
– Group Process as an Art-form Series; Putting group process at the center of thriving, Progressive orgs